I'm doing my PhD in Drug Discovery Biology simply because:

1. I love pursuing science and knowledge and want to have a better understanding of my field.

2. I dislike having to accept 'what something is' without understanding 'why something is'.

3. More career options and potentially better career progression (compared to if I just had a bachelor's degree).

4. Prestige. Yes prestige, but that's an added bonus.

5. I want to be a positive impact to society, science and healthcare.

It really depends on what the lecture is on. If it is on theoretical matters, only someone with a PhD will suffice because they are usually at the forefront of research (at least that's how it is in a decent university). If it is on purely practical matters, then someone with noteworthy industry experience and achievement will do a better job.

Note however that there are a lot of PhD degree holders out there who are also leaders in the field in industry and hence can speak not only from experience, but also from their deep understanding of the subject being also involved in research.

What's your research on?

Perhaps the reason there are rubbish lecturers is that they were given rubbish training from rubbish universities by rubbish staff themselves. Easy admission into a postgraduate degree is a factor, as you mentioned. I can only speak from my experience in Australia with Monash University. Most students who have completed their undergraduate degree will be required to show some competency in research/work experience before allowed to enter a postgraduate degree.

I also believe that only elite universities in a given country (?) with world-class pedigree in research, sufficient facilities/funding and a well-structured PhD programme should be allowed to confer PhDs to students. Seriously, PhDs are becoming cheap these days. It is unfair to people who fought hard to enter a world-class grad school and worked thrice as hard and contributed ten times as much to knowledge to graduate with a PhD. It is only these people, these passionate, intelligent people who truly care for their field who deserve to have a PhD and teach future undergraduates.

If you were to do grad school in a prestigious college without a real passion for your field, you will not survive. Monash University makes sure you pass several checkpoints each year and constantly assesses your competency, where the lack thereof will result in you getting kicked out in your first year. The Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences where I'm from is ranked 6th in world and takes its research seriously. They live and breathe high-impact journals. Only novel and high-impact research is undertaken by students and staff alike, which is how it should be in all institutes that award PhDs, the pinnacle of the education system.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the 3-year system. PhD graduates of Monash University (3-year system) are encouraged to do at least one post-doc before allowed to lecture, which I think is a great idea. The people who lecture in my faculty are mostly demi-gods of their field so I think it is unfair to blame the 3-year system.

In short, PhDs should only be awarded by institutes able to carry out internationally-recognised research with a good PhD programme in place. This way, these universities will be compelled to pick only the most passionate, the most intelligent students for their graduate programmes. They will filter out the wannabes by careful assessment of their research competency, by interview and by recommendation. The filtration process will then also continue throughout candidature to root out bad apples. The staff will also be on their toes to produce the best graduates and to do good research, because only world-class staff can produce world-class research and PhD graduates. Perform or get sacked.

This post has been edited by Farmer_C: Mar 21 2013, 02:25 PM

I understand what you're saying. It does suck when you've excelled and earned your testamur through and through and find that someone with sub-standard competency has the exact same certificate. I agree that my suggestion was radical and will probably never be implemented anywhere in the world but it gets you thinking as to what PhD graduates should really be like. Should we really have these pseudo-experts in our education system and trust them with our country's undergraduates?

On the contrary, not using your brain enough for thinking is a risk factor for Alzheimer's Disease.

"Ancora imparo (still I am learning)" - Michelangelo

Don't have kids during your PhD unless someone is willing to look after them for you all the time

Most of the people I know with PhDs have partners so I think it should be okay!

The only way one can survive a PhD in a quality programme is with passion and lots of support from your loved ones. Doing a PhD means you want to challenge yourself, learn and open more doors in your career. Anyone doing it for just money is kidding him/herself... cause the financial benefits you get are indirect and not instant per se.

Congrats on being given this opportunity. I can't imagine that this will be a simple decision to make. It's one of the reasons why I decided to do my PhD immediately after my undergraduate degree instead of working. My opportunity came and I chose to finish my formal education once and for all before venturing forth into work.

I'd say you should take this opportunity especially since you have no commitments. Not everyone is offered the chance to pursue a PhD. It will change the way you think as a person and in your career forever, like an evolution for the mind. As you have said yourself, it will open doors to many exciting things in your career or even outside of your career. No one should do a PhD expecting instant financial gratification but eventually it will repay you in full and more.

Pursue this PhD if you are really passionate about your field of work/study because it's not going to be easy juggling a career and your research. However, if you make it in the end, it will be worth it. Good luck!